Thursday, May 31, 2012

2012 is shaping up to be a BAD year for atheism and evolutionism! Great new charts and developments!

On December 26, 2011, we said we wanted to help make 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism. Is there any proof and evidence that 2012 is shaping up to be the worst year in the history of Darwinism and atheism? Yes, there is! You have come to the right place!

We have some exciting news concerning a key creation vs. evolution battleground area of the United States plus some additional charts to share with you.

Charts indicating that atheism is heading for trouble in the USA in 2012

As can be seen in the upper graphs of the Google Trends graphs below, people are showing less and less and less interest in atheism and prominent atheists in the first part of 2012 especially beginning in April:

Today we spoke to a key Texas opponent of Darwinism who has examined the Question Evolution! Campaign. The call went extremely well! In June of 2012, we will begin working on spreading the campaign in 3 key areas of Texas initially and then spreading the campaign throughout the state. Yippie-yi-yo-ki-yay! Move over little Texas evolutionist doggies, big ole' Question evolution! dog movin' in!

We have a list of 500 Texas churches and their contact information which we will be using in this second phase of Texas outreach.

I will ask you some questions in order to convey my thoughts on this matter in a clear and succinct matter.

Here are my questions:

1. Do you believe in blind obedience to experts and authorities or do you believe it is wise to think for yourself - especially on foundational/important issues?

Would you have blindly followed the Nazi authorities in if you had been in Nazi Germany?

Have you ever heard of the Milgram experiments?

Has there ever been cases where the scientific consensus was wrong and the Bible was correct? For example, how lions kill their prey or ant behavior or snake hearing? See: http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm and http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm and http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm

2. Can you satisfactorily the 15 questions for evolutionists and are you willing to engage in a public internet radio debate on these questions that would be recorded? A college biology student would probably be participating in the debate.

3. Why did the prominent scientists in Galileo's time oppose him concerning the matter of falling bodies? See: http://www.vias.org/physics/bk1_05_01.html Did they allow mere philosophy to trump empirical science? Is it possible that atheist, agnostics, deists and others adherents of other worldviews, could be obstinately ignoring the clear evidence for biblical creation? If not, why not?

4. Is true science a voting both and based on being well-known and/or popular or is it based on repeatable experiments and empirical evidence?

5. Did Albert Einstein perform good science? How many of Einstein’s 300+ papers were peer reviewed?

6. Daniel Shechtman won a Nobel Prize in chemistry. Why did he initially find it difficult to get his work published in peer-reviewed science journals?

7. Are you an atheist or agnostic? If so, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism/agnosticism is true?

You have way too much spare time to dig up all this meaningless garbage. The irony of your position is that you're criticising an absence of belief for having what you perceive as unanswerable questions, whilst upholding a belief that is far from free of these very same questions. Any world view that claims to hold ultimate truth devolves into circular arguments and is riddled with paradoxes. Why do you feel the need to try and force your brand of truth on others, as if diversity of opinion is a bad thing?

Dannijt, if you truly believe in what you are claiming then we would encourage you to debate us in a public internet radio debate which would be recorded and widely distributed via a 20,000 subscriber Christian YouTube channel. A creationist biology student would likely participate.

Please go to this free chat room and set up arrangements if you have the courage to defend evolutionary belief and atheism: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844

3. You failed to show that evolutionary belief has widespread support within the global community. For example, Britain is the homeland of Darwinism and it has been promoted there for over 150 years. In 2006, it was reported by the BBC that "Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons." See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm

Also, you certainly gave no proof and evidence that global Christendom largely accepts evolutionary belief in terms of a majority. Consider that most Christians live in the Eastern World and not the Western World and that Eastern World Christendom is more theologically conservative. See: http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Faith-and-Conflict-The-Global-Rise-of-Christianity.aspx and http://www.wnd.com/2005/04/30077/

At best, I think you will be able to show evolutionism has support within some secular left leaning organizations or secular left leaning institutions in the world or within Catholicism (theistic evolution) or liberal Protestantism or perhaps some other religious bodies.

As far as finding religious bodies which support evolutionism, perhaps you should see if Rastafarians support evolutionism. The evolutionist and agnostic Carl Sagan, who claimed evolution was a fact, was an avid marijuana smoker who claimed it gave him scientific insights.

4. You are being inconsistent and hypocritical. You claim that to debate creationists is to give them credibility, yet you want to debate us in this comment section.

Please let us know when you want to be more consistent. Because if continue to be inconsistent, you will unfortunately lose your privilege to post comments here barring willingness to engage us in a public debate which will be recorded and distributed to 20,000 YouTube subscribers.

5. This blog has provided plenty of trends and data indicating why evolutionary dogma and the secular religions of atheism/agnosticism are in trouble in terms of public support in the world. Our next post is going to provide some information on why it is going to get much worse. Information relating the Western World evolutionism is going to be provided.

As usual, evolutionists resort to snarky ridicule, appeal to consensus (a variation on ad populum), fallacy of assertion and others. Perhaps if schools spent more time teaching thinking skills and logic instead of spending time with indoctrination, there would be less of this.

Dannijt asks the complex question of why you "feel the need to try and force your brand of truth on others, as if diversity of opinion is a bad thing?" How does he know what you feel? (Sounds like appeal to motive fallacy.) Why does he feel that you think diversity of opinion is bad? Creationists have to fight to be heard, thank God for the Internet. He came along and did what he is falsely assigning to you, and forcing HIS "brand of truth" down YOUR throat. Ironic.

Even if every person on Earth became a Christian, Christianity would still be a false belief system. More people believing something doesn't make it more true or more historical. Truth is not a popularity contest.

15 Questions, note that q.7 - are you an Atheist or Agnostic and do you have any evidence that atheism/agnosticism is true - this question doesn't make sense.

Atheism and Agnosticism deal only with metaphysics - they do not say anything about the world we live in. Their only content is about things that are outside of experience. The statements they posit are metaphysical, not statements of fact.

An Atheist looks at the world, surveys everything that can be experienced, and says "well, this is the world, and I take it on faith that there isn't anything else beyond the world I can experience."

An Agnostic looks at the world and says "well, this is the world, and I have no way of knowing if there is anything beyond what I can experience so I'll reserve passing judgement on that."

A Christian who is not committed to the literal truth of the Bible says "well, there's the world, and I take it on faith that beyond that world of experience is God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell, etc."

These views are all committed to a purely metaphysical religious view - they have nothing to say about facts in the world. For any of the above individuals, "proving" religion is an absurd notion. Religion is not a question of fact.

A Creationist is committed to a literally true view of the bible. Beyond the metaphysical he must take it on faith that certain FACTS hold. For him alone religion has factual content and can be proved/disproved. But, he is committed to the view that his religion cannot be wrong about facts - therefore any contrary fact that seems to be the case MUST be taken on faith as actually wrong.

Asking me to prove that atheism is correct is like asking what math smells like. Atheism is a metaphysical world view with ontological content only. Proof is for facts about the world - Atheism does not posit any.

One can disprove the central facts that YEC holds are true - but it doesn't matter if you do so to the YEC believer. Anyone who ascribes to the YEC worldview must accept those facts on faith and can never be made to abandon them even in the face of contrary evidence.

Which is fine. But call a spade a spade. No, I cannot prove atheism or agnosticism. Nobody can - Atheism is a belief about what exists outside the world of experience.

But it is important to note that you won't give up your view EVEN IF you are presented with INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence that it is factually wrong. You are required by your commitment to the literal truth of the Bible to take it ON FAITH that the contrary evidence is actually wrong, even if it surpasses all shadow of doubt.

Which is fine, do whatever you want. But 1. be honest about it, with yourself and others 2. let other people make up their own minds - why do you even care if people Google "atheist"? - and 3. don't call it science. YEC and science both make statements about facts in the world, but that's where the similarity ends. Science is committed to the view that it can never obtain absolute truth no matter how strong the supporting evidence is and YEC is committed to the view that it already has absolute truth no matter how strong the contrary evidence is.

Here you would normally tirade on how the evidence points against evolution or an old universe so my point is moot.

But I can never be convinced by any of your arguments about factual statements. Even if the evidence is overwhelming it would have to come from somebody without a commitment to your world view. Why? You couldn't POSSIBLY say anything else. Even if things aren't the way you say, your ontological worldview commits you to saying that all facts about the world posited by the Bible are correct.

In other words, you may be right but I can't take your word for it because you can only give one answer, and the answer you give doesn't depend on facts in the world but rather words in the Bible.

Your comments show that you have a poor understanding of philosophy, Christianity and logic.

First, I don't believe you understand what metaphysics is. I suggest these two sources: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/METAPHYS.html and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

Second, anyone with even a basic understanding of Christianity and arguments for the existence of God understands that Christianity claims God intervened in history and intervenes in the present world. Atheism claims the opposite of course since it denies God exists. You certainty didn't offer convincing evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead nor did you refute the argument from religious experience (see: http://www.bethinking.org/who-are-you-god/advanced/god-questions-5-arguments-from-desire-religious-experience.htm ) nor show that miracles have not happened and do not happen presently.

Third, you have a poor understanding of logic as well. For example, you committed the genetic fallacy when you wrote: "But I can never be convinced by any of your arguments about factual statements. Even if the evidence is overwhelming it would have to come from somebody without a commitment to your world view. Why? You couldn't POSSIBLY say anything else. Even if things aren't the way you say, your ontological worldview commits you to saying that all facts about the world posited by the Bible are correct."

Lastly, your comments are straying away from this blog post which focuses on the fact that atheism/evolutionism is having a BAD year in 2012. Feel free to examine various posts on this blog and see for yourself what a bad year atheism/evolutionism is having. For example, by the end of tomorrow there will be about 800 less atheists in the world and 83,000 more people calling themselves Christians. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/globally-worldviews-of-atheism-and-non.html

Is this serious? Asking atheists to prove a negative? We have to prove that Jesus *didn't* rise from the dead, or else he did?

That's not how it works. That's now how the burden of proof is presented. Otherwise, I'm going to claim that invisible unicorns exist, and DEMAND that you provide solid evidence that they don't. If you can't, you're a hypocrite. This demand of proof of a negative is poor logic, and you're

There is no evidence of the events of the life of Jesus besides - what a surprise - the testimony of the Bible...and written word of this sort is hardly 'proof'.

The very first question in the 15 questions has NOTHING to do with 'the theory of evolution', and the fact that you'd ask it shows that you have no interest in intellctual dishonest. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, but while we're going to ask the question of origins, you ask where life came from, I'll ask where God came from. You can tell me what it says in the Bible, but there's no physical proof of his origins, even if he did exist. This is your failure - the null hypothesis (default explanation) is that things that have not been proven do not exist, not that they do until DISPROVEN.

You argue that the Earth is too complex to exist without a creator. Of course, any creator would need to be *more* complicated than the Universe, and if IT cannot exist without a creator, neither can the creator...or his creator, or his creator's creator...and so forth. To date, Christianity has never answered the infinite regression problem without a wave of the hands and a dismissive comment like "God is all powerful, and always has been". Of course, there's no hard evidence of this...

As for the 15 questions, they've all been answered or proven irrelevant to the discussion here (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Question_Evolution). Most of them are either flagrantly false (questions 1, 7, 8, 11, 12) or have already been answered ( 5, 8, 10, 13, 14). Ironically, you reject the answers, because they conflict with Biblical explanations - explaining why you're not scientists. Scientists start with a hypothesis, test it, and look for a conclusion - as biologists have done for years - and Creationists start with a conclusion already in mind, and try to find ways to bend the facts to fit it. The very basis of your so-called 'Creation Science' is a complete perversion of the word science.

So, please...this may work very well on uneducated layman, but some of us actually understand biology, and are all but certain that evolution is the proper explanation for the diversity of life; the evidence is literally overwhelming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent)

I would like to pose a serious question. Why is the theory of evolution something that you seek to destroy? Does the possibility of this theory being true pose such a great threat to the existence of God? Is it possible that evolution is the answer to how we were made but not why? I have read Genesis, and I believe it is a metaphor for the creation of the universe and ourselves. I don't understand how there can be such fighting over the question of how we were made. Personally by the power of observation and my own free will, I have come to the conclusion that the universe is very big and very old and that evolution was indeed for our current state. But this conclusion does not answer my question as to why we are here. God could be the answer to that. If God wanted to create man, who is to say it would take mere days. Do they not say that hundreds of our years are like seconds to God? It may have taken billions of years of evolution and reactions to create us, but who can really say God didn't create the universe we evolved in? Can't science and religion find common ground? I hope that through compromise and understanding all humans can find peace. I believe that is what Jesus was teaching. This in-fighting and hatred of science will get us no where. Sorry for the long post and many questions, but please take my words to heart.

First, making a decision relies on carefully examining an issue and evidence surrounding an issue. Can you honestly say you can convincingly answer the 15 questions for evolutionists of the Question Evolution! Campaign? Have you carefully examined the 15 plus pages of material via the 15 plus links on the 15 questions for evolutionists page? Unfortunately, I don't think you have.

Next, how much do you know about Bible exegesis? Did you carefully approach this issue? I suggest reading this material: http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally and the related articles.

The blog post offers proof and evidence that atheism/evolutionism is having a very BAD year.

Now if you mistakenly think that threatening to claim invisible unicorns exist is going to turn that around you are deluding yourself. Face it, the world is not interested in atheists threatening to claim that invisible unicorns exist. I hate to rain on your invisible unicorn parade, but that is the reality.

Secondly, the leading encyclopedias of philosophy define atheism as the denial in the existence of God so you most certainly have to defend your negative claims against Christianity or at the very least offer more plausible explanations. If you take issue with this, show me an encyclopedia of philosophy which offers a differing definition of atheism.

So I most certainly will demand that you offer a better explanation for the Christian claim of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Anthony Flew debated the Christian Dr. Gary Habermas on the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the debate judges ruled that Habermas won the debate. Why don't you ask Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Michael Sherman, Dan Barker or other prominent atheists to debate Dr. Habermas on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We both know who will win, don't we? Christianity has been winning that debate for over 2,000 years because there is excellent evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. See: Did Jesus rise from the dead? by Michael Horner

Second, if you truly believe that the 15 questions for evolutionists of the Question Evolution! Campaign have no validity, then debate us. You can reach us here http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 and the debate will be recorded and distributed to 20,000 YouTube subscribers.

Lastly, you certainly offered no proof and evidence that atheism is true. Of course, this is a prime reason why atheism is having a very bad year. People are sick of the empty religion of atheism.

I have noticed over the years that atheists and Darwinists are big on accusations and claims, but come up short on proof and evidence.

It is very telling that you gave no proof and evidence concerning your charge of statistical recklessness. Some might say comical.

If you care to respond, please do not use the logical fallacy of the fallacy of exclusion and neglect to cite all the data/graphs I presented/cited including the section titled "Want to see some dramatic charts showing that atheism has had a bad 5 years?"

By the way, are you an atheist? If so, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? The reason I ask this question is that there is an abundant amount of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ and for Christianity. See: Did Jesus rise from the dead? and Evidence for Christianity

For the most part, I don't see the point of your post. Where is the evidence that "nobody cares" for example. Are there not a lot of Christians in the world and isn't global Christianity growing rapidly in the world? Historically, have militant atheists and Darwinists tried to suppress biblical Christianity?

I do understand that atheism is just a squeak in many societies so few people really care about global atheism shrinking in those societies. Also, it is true that atheism is wrongheaded and madness and there are certainly no shortage of "crazy atheists".

At the same time, given all the mass murder that atheists have engaged in historically (Stalin, etc.) and the murderous ideologies that Darwin has helped spawn (Hitler's evolutionary racism, etc.), it certainly is good news that atheism/evolutionism is having a very bad year. See: Social effects of evolutionary belief

Those weren't unbiased sources. The fact of the matter is that atheism isn't really trying to disprove god, because it doesn't have to. Intelligent people tend to flock towards atheism and agnosticism naturally.

"Hitler saw the church as important politically, as a conservative influence on society. He felt that if the church were eliminated the faithful would turn to mysticism, which he thought would be a step backwards politically and culturally. Though he never officially left the Catholic Church, he had no real attachment to it.[324] After leaving home he never attended Mass or received the sacraments.[325] He favoured aspects of Protestantism that suited his own views, and adopted some elements of the Catholic Church's hierarchical organisation, liturgy, and phraseology in his politics.[326][327]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Religious_views

"Those weren't unbiased sources. The fact of the matter is that atheism isn't really trying to disprove god, because it doesn't have to. Intelligent people tend to flock towards atheism and agnosticism naturally."

Boonkitty, unfortunately this post was not as thoughtful as your last post. Namely, you are committing the logical fallacy of the genetic fallacy. I suggest providing compelling reasons why the information I offered was not valid instead of illogically crying bias.

In addition, can you provide me an encyclopedia of philosophy that defines atheism as you have defined it? I know I can certainly name encyclopedias of philosophy that define atheism as the denial of the existence of God. See: http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ and http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm

Also, your intelligent people tend to be atheist remark is based on poor reasoning and data. See: http://www.doxa.ws/other/smarter.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2008/dec/19/religion-iq-atheism By the way, the atheist PZ Myers who is no intellectual giant doesn't even buy the atheism/intelligence "argument" as can be seen here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/25/whos-smarter-than-who/#comments

Boonkitty, you are definitely going to have to step up your game if you want all of your post published! Although your other post was not bad, I certainly will not post another post such as this one. Atheism already has a bad reputation and you are making it worse! The atheist Sam Harris said about the word atheist "It's right next to child molester as a designation."

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark- is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

But I digress; we could easily argue the validity and factuality of the biblical text all afternoon and well into brunch the next day. Or better yet we can discuss how inflammatory proto-zealotofwhateversuitsme blogs such as these are exactly what drive individuals away from organized religion in favor of agnosticism. Regardless, even the Vatican has recognized that there are just some mysteries beyond our present knowledge. Father Gabriel Funes, The Pope's chief astronomer recently wrote in the Vatican newspaper that there is definite evidence of other life scattered amongst the stars- the headline read 'Aliens Are My Brother'.

"Just as there are multiple forms of life on earth, so there could exist intelligent beings in outer space created by God. And some aliens could even be free from original sin, he speculates.Asked about the Catholic Church's condemnation four centuries ago of the Italian astronomer and physicist, Galileo, Father Funes diplomatically says mistakes were made, but it is time to turn the page and look towards the future. Science and religion need each other, and many astronomers believe in God, he assures readers.

To strengthen its scientific credentials, the Vatican is organizing a conference next year to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7399661.stm

So am I really to believe that your version and interpretation of the creation story is accurate? I mean do aliens go to heaven? Evolution is observable everywhere you look in nature (MRSA for a recent example) and has been supported by an enormous body of evidence for the better half of a century. Creationism and Evolution are not inconsolable, only for those who are afraid of resigning themselves to a measure of doubt. Hell, even the Catholic Church is willing to recognize Charles Darwin as a Child of God.

Like many atheists/evolutionists you have deluded yourself into thinking that by merely saying things, you make them true. I could easily say that the books of Richard Dawkins are filled with repetitions and the first two chapters of his book The God Delusion disagree with each other. Would that make it necessarily true? No, it would not!

Secondly, so you are talking about the same Roman Catholic Church that gave Galileo a tough time. You haven't given me one compelling reason why I should take their pronouncements on the evolutionary paradigm to be valid.

Prophet, if you do not considerably step up your game, I most certainly will not publish your next comment! Weak and insufficiently substantiated claims get the D-E-L-E-T-E button. Step up your game or see your comments perish unpublished!

Kind of silly to post a lack of searching statistics for proof of creation. lol... I am an atheist and am often searching through more creation sites and creationsists than atheist stuff. I already know where I stand as an atheist, I dont need to google myself all the time. However, I like to keep up to date with the creation movement, and I am sure many other atheists do the same.

3. You are confusing activity with profitable activity. For example, athletes who practice using bad technique never get any better.

You can read a million web pages giving the compelling evidence for biblical creation, but if you do it with a closed mind, nothing is ever going to come of it. I suggest you read the Sermon on the Mount given by Jesus Christ given in the Gospel of Matthew and ask yourself how you come up short in your life compared to God's standards of moral perfection. Then I would repent of your sins and become a Christian. If you are honest with yourself, you should have no problem discovering evidence that you have sinned in your life.

Given that atheismis centered around rebellion to God, many atheists have control issues. Accordingly, they want to have complete control as far as what blog comments are published here regardless of their quality. That is not going to happen if they fail to make quality comments.

We have no problem responding to sincere and thoughtful posts, but we see it as a waste of time to respond to posts which fail to meet this reasonable standard.

We have made it clear what we are about. We are about increasing biblical creation outreach and reducing the amount of adherents to the false religions of evolutionism and atheism through reasonable and effective methods.

In 2012, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (GCTS) reported that every day there are 800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day. We would like to see the rate of decline of adherents to atheism/agnosticism accelerate and also see more people engage in creation/Christian evangelism.

Next, if any atheists/agnostics/evolutionists feel we are being unfair to their religions and do not accurately portray them, we have offered to engage in debate on the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answerwhere the debate is recorded and distributed to 20,000 YouTube subscribers. We can be contacted here: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844

Lastly, I am sorry to hear that you have decided to engage in a pointless and amateurish psychological evaluation as far as claiming anger on my part rather than do something more substantive and productive. I understand that this is a common tactic of atheists, but given the decline of global atheism in the world and its expected decline to accelerate in the world perhaps you should reconsider your tactics. They say that insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results. You should consider changing your way of doing things. see: Global decline of atheism

I am willing to debate on this channel with a recording presented on Youtube. Who should I get into contact with to arrange this formal debate?

Furthermore, you need to check your definition of religion because evolution is by no means a religion and is taken on absolutely no faith. Every aspect of evolution and common descent are founded entirely on observed, verified, and peer reviewed data.

I understand that the posts on this thread are censored, so I have recorded the process of sending this to ensure that I did send it and that if it is not posted/accepted that my accepting of the challenge was knowingly and willingly declined.

Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.

1. Do you have to know/understand the most intimate details to know that something happened in the past? For example, can a jury convict someone of murdering someone without knowing the exact nanosecond it occurred?

2. Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

I am just going to say that this is one of the most unChristian webpages I have seen in a long time. As I understand it, Christianity is about acceptance, tolerance, and love. Not once did I see anything of the sort on this page. Furthermore, I saw things like "Run evolutionism out of your community!" That sounds like persecution, which I believe to be the complete opposite of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

You wrote: "As I understand it...". Of course, this let me know right off the bat that you have not done your due diligence and are likely an atheists who has a self-imposed ignorance of Christianity.

Have you read the Bible the whole way through?

The Bible says, "The fool in his heart says there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).

Lastly, it is easy to run evolutionism out a community. And we explain exactly how: "Help spread the word about the Question Evolution! Campaign and its 15 questions for evolutionists and watch the decline of world interest in the shallow foolishness of Darwinism and atheism accelerate!" I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound very violent. You are obviously grasping at straws.

I appreciate the response. In fact I am not an atheist and furthermore have read the Bible completely during my years as a Christian and as a Bible school teacher.

I say, "As I understand it" because there are many interpretations of the Bible and to claim that I have all of the answers about it would be completely arrogant.

As for "Running Evolutionism out of your community," I wasn't referring to it's difficulty, rather I was pointing out that as it is written on this very page; "Texas Christians and Christians throughout the world, it time to run evolutionism out of your community!"

I have no issues with people who do not agree with evolution, and I certainly hold nothing but respect for Christianity and its teachings.

My problem is not with your beliefs, that I have addressed separately. My problem is how you have presented this ancient and beautiful faith on this webpage. I posted this because I felt that you were straying from the most fundamental teachings of Christ.

This is a quote from Paul, founder of the church and the one who allowed gentiles to join the church.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.1st Corinthians 13:4-5

1. Please read these resources on biblical interpretation/exegesis: http://creation.com/is-there-a-universal-way-christians-should-interpret-the-bible and http://creation.com/the-bible-and-hermeneutics and http://creation.com/hold-on-mr-holzmann

2. Are you an evolutionist? If so, are you willing to take us up on this debate challenge:

A debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

I have sent a message through the youtube message center. I haven't gotten a response yet, and I cannot log on to check every day. Do you know the normal amount of time it takes to get a response? I have tried to use the chat room but it has frequently been locked for periods of five to ten hours and it makes it very difficult to fit into my schedule.

I am happy to provide that, but is there a way to post it while not making it public viewing? My reason being that I would prefer not to draw attention to my channel from people who may feel strongly either way about this topic and post on it.

As for times, I would prefer to ask a few questions about the debate first so I can accurately decide the amount of prep time needed as well as the time I should dedicate for the actual debate. I'm sorry for any inconveniences this may cause you.

I have used an account called EwokPatrol. I would kindly ask any viewers not to post on this channel, regardless of their personal views. If it is possible to deny permission for this message and message me on YouTube, I would appreciate that.

On a side note, I have had a consistent issue logging onto the chat room, with it being locked right now and I usually only find it open around noon, which is in the middle of the work day, so it is not an opportune time for me.